Eric. The only problem with that is that it means that archaeology barely
exists outside the USA.I must admit to having read a lot of anthropology
over the years more from my historical than arcaheological training. I do
not regard myself though as an anthropologist but coming from a distinct
European tradition of archaeology despite being more than well read in north
american archaeology and anthropology. For that matter even our anthropology
has a different intelectual tradition to the US. Anthropology does not have
all the answers and like archaeology and history it nicked some of its
theory from other sources eg German Kulturgeschicte. The cultural
anthropological approach has certainly given a distictive and often
innovative approach to US archaeology but then one could point out some of
its traditional weaknesses- lack of regional analysis, obsession with
ethnicity and geo-cultural patterning at the expense of political, economic
and social process, for example. One of the major trends of recent decades
has been for the interdisciplary boundaries to break down and a jolly good
thing. However, Americans can never quite see why people elsewhere in the
world get a little upset about their cultural imperialism.

paul courtney
Leicester
UK
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Deetz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 12:58 PM
Subject: Re: archaeologists and history-Baby and bathwater


> I have been lurking on the list  and have been following this thread all
> week and am responding not to any particular post but to the whole tone
and
> direction. I am not interested in any long debates but I do have a few
> comments. In the search for the right balance of archaeology and history
Jim
> Deetz's name came up a couple of times a someone who's approach was
> successful. He was able to have an impact on the field because he was
first
> and foremost an ANTHROPOLOGIST and a student of material culture. He
> considered the historic record as one category of material culture among
the
> many he studied to look for broad cultural patterns. He was a strong
> believer in his approach and probably the only thing he would have
admitted
> agreeing with Binford on was that archaeology is "anthropology or it is
> nothing" If we abandon the importance of anthropological training we will
> all be lost with no direction.
>
>
Eric Deetz